(Original post by nulli tertius)
What about the 1014 asylum seekers from India in 2015, the 1110 from Bangladesh, the 1519 Albanians, the 133 Jamaicans fleeing the tyrannical rule of Queen Elizabeth II and the 78 Kenyans? The number fleeing EU persecution was only 240 (100 of those were Poles). Presumably the 34 Yanks will rise in the next year.

Interestingly there are very low levels of persecution in Cyprus, generally only one refugee a year from Northern Cyprus whilst around 8 Canadians flee a year.

Ha. Had no idea we got asylum seekers from there.

I would of course reject them, i generally don't agree with asylum at all.

(Original post by l'etranger)
They're not mutually exclusive. It really pisses me off how the left have managed to create this perception that they are the intelligent ones given their reliance on memes and lies.

Regardless, it is common knowledge that the EU control the deal-making process. I know they're not mutually exclusive, that still doesn't change the fact that the proportion of exports we sell to the EU is larger than the proportion of exports the EU countries send to us. This means we have more to lose than they have.

Aww, are you butthurt because the memes on twitter roasted you? Don't think you're superior because you read the DM.

(Original post by Rakas21)
Ha. Had no idea we got asylum seekers from there.

I would of course reject them, i generally don't agree with asylum at all.

My view is that if you refuse all "in country" applications except where a country has gone seriously downhill whilst someone has lawfully been in the UK, the issue goes away politically. All these people caught in lorries in Calais or Dover don't claim asylum. They don't want to be locked up in a detention centre for a year or so before being put on a plane to the back of beyond. They want to try again to get in next week. Only if they are caught in a kitchen in London, is the asylum claim more attractive.

(Original post by Rakas21)
EFTA requires ECJ membership and that is not something that i can condone and based on post Brexit polling neither would a majority of Leave voters. It's something between EEA and Canada.

I'm not massively against free movement but seeing Merkel's open border go unchallenged with the third world, i do see the merit of some controls albeit i don't want the number reduced.

The EFTA Court follows EU case law on any EFTA provisions made prior to the 1992 EEA Agreement which are equivalent to provisions in EU law, but on provisions made afterwards can diverge even if the provisions are equivalent. Obviously the two institutions are very close and regularly refer to each other's judgements, not least because of the single market. But it's flatly untrue that EFTA membership, or even EEA membership, requires ECJ membership.

The point is, it seems, that within EFTA/EEA there is flexibility on all the major issues in the Brexit campaign while retaining tariff-free access/membership of the single market. Even if the EFTA Court is close to the ECJ, as long as we can get out of freedom of movement and are exempt from the bits of the EU where we don't like the ECJ telling us what to do on, who cares?

What you would have to find to counter this argument is something you object to which under the EEA Agreement we would be forced to do thanks to the EFTA Court's convergence with the ECJ. For example, as a socialist who believes public services and infrastructure should be owned and operated at the expense of the state, I would be unhappy because state aid is still prohibited under the EEA Agreement, but I would suck it up.

(Original post by jape)
Sever everything, request a free trade deal. If you don't get it, slash corporate tax to a fraction of its current rate and choke the life out of international investment in the Eurozone.

That means the UK is less attractive than "the Eurozone" (which we were never in anyway, so what's the worry?) to the tune of however large a discount we have had to give. It would be an admission that the UK cannot do better out of the EU than in and a national humiliation. It would also be unsustainable, since there is nothing keeping those companies here, so we would never be able to raise corporation tax back up to the going rate; furthermore, investment decisions would be made to benefit the profit line of those companies first, rather than the people first.

(Original post by scrotgrot)
That means the UK is less attractive than "the Eurozone" (which we were never in anyway, so what's the worry?) to the tune of however large a discount we have had to give. It would be an admission that the UK cannot do better out of the EU than in and a national humiliation. It would also be unsustainable, since there is nothing keeping those companies here, so we would never be able to raise corporation tax back up to the going rate; furthermore, investment decisions would be made to benefit the profit line of those companies first, rather than the people first.

Less attractive according to you, but not to the financial institutions who already have their headquarters in London. Why would it be humiliating to scrap corporation tax? It's a step in the right direction, toward a freer market. Also, the only responsibility a corporation has is to generate profit by producing quality services at competitive prices.

(Original post by jape)
Less attractive according to you, but not to the financial institutions who already have their headquarters in London. Why would it be humiliating to scrap corporation tax? It's a step in the right direction, toward a freer market. Also, the only responsibility a corporation has is to generate profit by producing quality services at competitive prices.

No, you've misunderstood me. If you have to artificially reduce corporation tax significantly below the rate it is in comparable countries, it indicates that Britain is that much less attractive to the corporations in and of itself; the discount compensates for it. Britain out of the EU requires that handicap in order to be as attractive as countries which, given their similar fundamentals, it should already be competitive with at the same tax rates.

A corporation does not have a responsibility to generate profit by producing quality services at competitive prices. It has a responsibility to maximise profit by any means. It's just that in free market theory in a perfectly free market with perfect information etc, quality services at competitive prices is the route to profit.

But in a situation where supply is restricted or demand unlimited for some reason, for example most basic infrastructure and public services, a free market cannot operate and corporations will not be incentivised to provide quality services at competitive prices, since this is not the best way for them to maximise profits. Neither will the state if it is running public services, but at least the state is accountable to the service users, taxpayers and the population in general, and subject to Freedom of Information (that's one of the types of free market you don't like, I'll bet).

(Original post by scrotgrot)
It would be an admission that the UK cannot do better out of the EU than in and a national humiliation.

If that situation comes about it's because we chose to place the integrity of our national institutions and borders over certain economic considerations. There's nothing humiliating about that. 'Doing better' is broader than pounds and pence, particularly short term pounds and pence.

I must say I find it quite odd that someone who I assume identifies as left wing on economics appears to consider the be-all-and-end-all of 'doing well' to be how attractive the UK is to multinational corporations.

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
If that situation comes about it's because we chose to place the integrity of our national institutions and borders over certain economic considerations. There's nothing humiliating about that. 'Doing better' is broader than pounds and pence, particularly short term pounds and pence.

I must say I find it quite odd that someone who I assume identifies as left wing on economics appears to consider the be-all-and-end-all of 'doing well' to be how attractive the UK is to multinational corporations.

I wonder what you would have said if it were an ideological project brought forward by the left which proposed giving up economic prosperity in return for, let's say, taking back control of our privatised public services, or giving more money to the poor and disabled (although in fact both of these would boost the economy).

I'm not saying "doing well" consists in attracting multi-national corporations. I'm simply saying that coming out of the single market will make us less attractive to multi-national corporations to the tune of whatever discount we would have to give them on corporation tax so we could compete for business with Europe. The need to offer lower corporation tax rates in order to keep the same level of business is an admission that leaving the single market is not in the assessment of the markets likely to lead to sunlit uplands. It seems you accept this, but Jape doesn't.

Left-wingers don't not care about the economy, we just either believe that our ideas will help the economy or they will benefit ordinary people even if they hamper the economy. So if you are going to hamper the total size of your economy by cutting off foreign direct investment, you had better be doing it to pay for something which will redistribute the smaller overall amount of wealth, or in place of wealth, rights and enjoyment, to the ordinary people.

The kicker is that I don't think Brexit will do anything of the sort, especially given that we have a Tory government in power. We are likely to lose workers' rights to paid holiday, maternity leave, redundancy and dismissal procedures, health and safety at work. Without the body of employment law guaranteed by the EU, the only way for workers to bargain for their rights will be to form trade unions and disrupt the functioning of many industries and services. Wages might rise in the short term in those occupations which had suffered from EU regulation or the free movement of people, but only due to unsustainable practices like over-fishing or a sweet spot before labour automation which takes a decade or two to get going. Wage rises will also make things commensurately more expensive, and the £220 billion black hole combined with the ageing population will ensure that our taxes rise.

(Original post by scrotgrot)
I wonder what you would have said if it were an ideological project brought forward by the left which proposed giving up economic prosperity in return for, let's say, taking back control of our privatised public services, or giving more money to the poor and disabled (although in fact both of these would boost the economy).

I'm not saying "doing well" consists in attracting multi-national corporations. I'm simply saying that coming out of the single market will make us less attractive to multi-national corporations to the tune of whatever discount we would have to give them on corporation tax so we could compete for business with Europe. The need to offer lower corporation tax rates in order to keep the same level of business is an admission that leaving the single market is not in the assessment of the markets likely to lead to sunlit uplands. It seems you accept this, but Jape doesn't.

Left-wingers don't not care about the economy, we just either believe that our ideas will help the economy or they will benefit ordinary people even if they hamper the economy. So if you are going to hamper the total size of your economy by cutting off foreign direct investment, you had better be doing it to pay for something which will redistribute the smaller overall amount of wealth, or in place of wealth, rights and enjoyment, to the ordinary people.

The kicker is that I don't think Brexit will do anything of the sort, especially given that we have a Tory government in power. We are likely to lose workers' rights to paid holiday, maternity leave, redundancy and dismissal procedures, health and safety at work. Without the body of employment law guaranteed by the EU, the only way for workers to bargain for their rights will be to form trade unions and disrupt the functioning of many industries and services. Wages might rise in the short term in those occupations which had suffered from EU regulation or the free movement of people, but only due to unsustainable practices like over-fishing or a sweet spot before labour automation which takes a decade or two to get going. Wage rises will also make things commensurately more expensive, and the £220 billion black hole combined with the ageing population will ensure that our taxes rise.

Well accepting your premise that it would give up economic prosperity there's a decent chance I would disagree with such a campaign, but I would recognise the concept behind it, and I wouldn't solely judge its success or failure by reference to my own priorities because I would understand that it wasn't embarked upon with my priorities in mind. It would not make sense to say that we were humiliated by losing overall prosperity in that circumstance because, assuming similar circumstances regarding a referendum etc, that would have been a risk taken by the country as a whole in pursuit of a different objective.

My point wasn't that the economic left as a whole doesn't care about the economy, but rather that (a) typically members of the left understand the concept of prioritising other things over GDP, which I think is entirely consistent with your third paragraph, and, less importantly, (b) simply that it seems a little incongruous on its face for the left as a generality to be suddenly so concerned about the needs of multinational corporations, even though it may be perfectly consistent for you personally to be concerned about that.

I understand your points about what you expect to be the effects on workers. I would simply say that if you can recognise workers' economic welfare specifically as a possible reason to depart from increases in overall economic output as the ultimate policy objective I don't see why you wouldn't be able to accept the legitimacy of people saying the same thing about the repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster. If you do accept that then I don't think it makes much sense to regard a loss of attractiveness for FDI as a humiliation.

NT, given the ruling today and the likely passing of the Article 50 "Activation" Act on Thursday, is the government required to come back to parliament to get the "final" negotiated deal approved in 2 years time?

(Original post by jneill)
NT, given the ruling today and the likely passing of the Article 50 "Activation" Act on Thursday, is the government required to come back to parliament to get the "final" negotiated deal approved in 2 years time?

Technically "no".

It would be caught by this legal requirement (replacing the Ponsonby Convention.)

But in practice, the government plans to have a Great Repeal Bill which is designed to repatriate EU laws and incorporate what is to be kept in UK law and that bill is designed to precede the making of a deal.

However, unless Theresa has a very good crystal ball (and if she has, why doesn't she fund the NHS by betting on racehorses), she would not be able to anticipate the legal changes necessitated by the subsequent deal and will therefore need a further Bill to implement the deal when it is made.

My own feeling is that the Great Repeal Bill will become a damp squib and become an Automatic Continuation Bill. I can't see why the government would want to waste political capital on it. The real political fight will be on the Bill implementing the deal.

But in practice, the government plans to have a Great Repeal Bill which is designed to repatriate EU laws and incorporate what is to be kept in UK law and that bill is designed to precede the making of a deal.

However, unless Theresa has a very good crystal ball (and if she has, why doesn't she fund the NHS by betting on racehorses), she would not be able to anticipate the legal changes necessitated by the subsequent deal and will therefore need a further Bill to implement the deal when it is made.

My own feeling is that the Great Repeal Bill will become a damp squib and become an Automatic Continuation Bill. I can't see why the government would want to waste political capital on it. The real political fight will be on the Bill implementing the deal.

retain european arrest warrant
retain membership of science and education stuff
retain free trade in goods and membership of single market for services (equivalence instead of ecj)

what i would offer for the above deal..

Annual payment (so long as our net contribution is reduced we may as well bribe them)
eu immigration quota excluding refugees (basically we agree that 200,000 eu immigrants will be given permanent residence each year)